[governance] Themes for the coming IGFs

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> Adam Peake schrieb:
>> I agree with you, critical Internet resources should stay on the
>> agenda, I think the discussion took a good direction this year. A
>> number of people noted the CIR debate was a sign of the IGF maturing.
> 
> I am surprised that nobody so far has mentioned pushing for a rights-based
> approach to IG that was thoroughly discussed at the caucus meeting.

I did an hour ago or so.

  As I
> said there, I am a bit sceptical if it's a good idea to put human rights
> up for discussion, but this probably depends on the framing. "Translating
> and implementing human rights for IG" would go in the right direction.

Yes, one could also frame it a bit broader such as 'the role of rights 
in IG'. That would make certainly a good main session. I spoke against 
the 'rights based approach to IG' as an overall theme at the caucus 
meeting but I would support this topic for a main session.
> 
>> I was very surprised as the lack of civil society participation 
>> --particularly IGC and the bill of rights caucus-- in the open dialogue
>>  promoting cybersecurity and trust, it was the session for pushing 
>> rights.  Think there were perhaps 3 or 4 CS speakers during the whole 
>> afternoon 
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/Open%20Dialogue.html>. 
>> The mics were open, what was the problem?
> 
> I can speak only for myself. I was at a parallel workshop for the first
> half or so, and when I came to the plenary, I had the impression that the
> whole debate had been hijacked by the "think of the children" faction.

Not my impression. I found the debate rather unstructured and shifting 
randomly between topics. One of the few substantial contributions came 
from Casper Bowden who spoke against the popular dichotomy between 
privacy and security.

> That at least discouraged me from taking the mic.
> 
> A general point: If Nitin Desai sticks to his famous last words in
> Hyderabad ("we have to move towards consensus" or so), the /format/ of the
> main sessions will have to be different, too. Something in between
> traditional text negotiations and just open mic. Any ideas here?

I heard many people saying that they would like to see clearer 
objectives for the various formats (workshops, main sessions, open 
dialogues, etc). I some areas where there seems to be broad consensus 
one could imagine specific outcomes as the aim of the event. I don't 
think this would work for all areas and discussion formats. We probably 
need an approach of specific speeds or ambitions reflecting the various 
degrees of antagonism that exist in each field.
jeanette
> 
> Best, Ralf
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance